Accelerating the Speed of Lies
By Alan Caruba
“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie…”
Who wrote that? The answer is Adolf Hitler in “Mein Kampf”, published in his1925 autobiography. During World War Two the U.S. government’s Office of Strategic Services, which later would evolve into the Central Intelligence Agency, assessed Hitler’s methods:
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people would sooner or later believe it.”
I have been reading David Kupelian’s new book, “How Evil Works” and thinking a lot lately about lies, lying, and liars. At the heart of great frauds is the lie and it seems to me that Americans have lately been subjected to a surfeit of lies that began with the 2008 election campaign in which a virtually unknown, first term Illinois Senator announced he was running for President.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” is attributed to Mark Twain and the truth of that is more evident than ever because technology has increased the speed with which lies travel. It has, fortunately, also given speed to those who debunk the lies and the result is a dizzying avalanche of conflicting claims.
Being ignorant of the intent of our nation’s Founding Fathers, of the limitations on the federal government found in the U.S. Constitution, of the deliberate separation of powers in our government’s executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and of history in general puts people at a disadvantage to recognize a threat to the nation and their freedom.
Edgar Watson Howe, (1853-1937) a newspaper and magazine editor in the early years of the last century said, “Americans detest all lies except lies spoken in public or printed lies.”
I think he was reflecting on the influence of the broadcast and print media of his day, but it is no less true today. Most certainly, the presidency is an enormous platform for the person holding the office to advance policy by telling lies.
A President, however, who is perceived to be a serial liar, soon begins to lose credibility and popularity. President Obama’s credibility and popularity has fallen at an astonishing rate in just over a year in office.
It is worth noting, too, that the credibility of newspapers as a source of objective reporting has been in decline as the Internet has grown, offering an enormous number of news and opinion websites from which anyone can determine the truth or falsehood of public debate.
The English publisher and writer, Ernest Benn (1875-1954) said, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy.”
We are seeing this play out in the effort to “reform” Medicare by President Obama and the Democrat Party. Even Republicans know that Medicare is in need of some changes to improve the program. Tort reform and the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines are but two improvements that make perfectly good sense to most people.
However, the reform being proffered by the White House is nothing more than a socialist expansion of a government that is already too large and too unwieldy to serve the interests of Americans. It would, as is often pointed out, destroy the best health system in the world and put one sixth of the nation’s economy under the control of government.
In the process of putting forth Medicare “reform” President Obama has told so many lies that it is only with great difficulty that one can keep track of them.
Little wonder that the great historian, Edward Gibbon, wrote that “History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
No greater modern example of this is found in the global warming fraud. Since the 1980s the deliberate distorting of “science” has been the basis for the Big Lie that the Earth’s overall temperature is rising rapidly and that mankind is responsible for it through the use of coal, oil, and natural gas as fuels for industry use and the production of electrical power.
The greatest lies of the modern era, however, have been communism and its baby sister, socialism. The deaths of millions are attributed to Communism as practiced in the former Soviet Union and in the early years of the Peoples Republic of China. Nazism, a form of socialism, led to the deaths of millions in World War Two.
Nations that have embraced socialism are experiencing serious financial crisises these days. These political systems have proven to be failures wherever they have been introduced and imposed.
The greatest domestic challenge to Americans today is the combination of socialism, a system that has been slowly introduced into the governance of the nation since the 1930s, and the recent election of a “messiah” promising “hope and change.”
Beyond and within our shores, the other Big Lie, Islam, threatens our freedoms and it too must be resisted and defeated.
Today, however, Americans need to embrace the U.S. Constitution as never before. It is our shield against despotism and the lies that advance it.
Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Where did the “Silent Majority” go???
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
During the decade of the seventies the “Silent Majority” was often spoken of in the press. Prominent politicians, including the President, openly sought their support.
Well, where did they go?
Oh, they’re still here… and just as powerful as before. You see them everyday. They’re all around you. They are the folks you see at parties who stand around the edges of a group discussing politics. They rarely have any input into the discussion… they just absorb it. They’re the folks who do not sit in on the coffee klatch discussion on politics and world affairs. They’re the people who go to church, nearly every Sunday, and raise their children to be respectful of others and live useful, productive lives. They send their kids to church supported universities and colleges for a good education, rather than an indoctrination in the ways of the political left.
The Silent Majority is the folk who never miss an opportunity to vote. They believe men died to give them that opportunity, and they will not abuse the memory of those heroic men by not going to the polls to vote. They are also the people who will not tell those taking the Exit Polls who they voted for. They voted in secret, it’s their secret, and they will keep it, often never even divulging it to their families. They are, for the most part, conservative in politics as well as religion.
These are the people who shop at Wal-Mart, and K-mart, and drive 2, 3 or 4 year old cars. Most own their own homes. They have savings accounts and they have a family budget, which they will not abuse. Their lives are built around their families and their church. Many are veterans of America’s armed forces. They believe this country is worth fighting for and they will put their own lives on the line to protect her. They view politics as a necessary evil. They believe they should always vote for the man who best represents their belief. They will not support a candidate just because he, or she, wears the label of the party to which they, themselves, are registered.
They wield enormous power. These people can make, or break, a presidential election. When they step into the voting booth, they speak, loud and clear. It is there that the Silent Majority rejects their silence and shouts their politics to the world.
President Obama and our socialist Congress should be mindful of these powerful Americans. They see it all, and they hear it all, and they silently form their conclusion about who should get their support. Politicians, beware! You neglect the Silent Majority at your peril.– especially now that they have found their audible voice through the outspoken Conservative Movement (Example: The Tea Party movement).
Then — there is the Mainstream Media. The voice of the American left. They make fun of one of the mightiest forces in American politics. The Silent Majority never fails to notice the press’s stifled giggles; and their backhanded insults of the conservative politics of these very real, very patriotic, Americans. They see it all and… they remember… and they take those memories into the voting booth with them.
So, here’s to the Silent Majority! May God bless them!
For today’s article by Alan Caruba Entitled:
“Cheerful Remarks at the Funeral”
pleas go to:
For today’s article on Global Governance please go to:
For today’s commentary please visit:
STORM WARNING! at:
A Rip in the Fabric of the GOP Tent!
We Republicans have a growing divide in our party…the divide between Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans. I don’t include Moderate Republicans because, frankly, I don’t believe there is such a thing. Moderates, I believe, are simply Liberals afraid to take a stand.
Here’s the problem: Liberals want to compromise. They LOVE to compromise. Conservatives do not want to compromise at all. In fact we view compromise as losing. We conservatives had rather lose than compromise, period.
This trait has caused the Liberal Republicans to hate our guts and, believe me when I tell you, there is no love lost for Liberal Republicans in the Conservative Camp.
So, basically, what we have is… a big tent with two political parties underneath it.
This is not good for anyone… except the Democrats.
So, I propose the split of the Republican Party. The Liberals may keep the name “Republican” if they choose and the new name for the Conservative Republican party would be: “The Conservative Party”.
I have said often, before, that I believe a Conservative Political party would draw conservatives from the Democrat party who feel they have no place to go now. I still believe that.
It is a fact that the electorate in America leans conservative… all the time. So… why not have a Conservative Party, as such? Makes all sorts of sense to me.
I do not believe we would be a three party system long. I am fairly certain the liberal Republicans would fold straight away, or join with the Liberal democrats, as they should, anyway.
Taking uncompromising stands is the hallmark of a conservative. That’s what we do. It’s how we got to be conservatives in the first place.
The Libs in the GOP really want us to be gone… they think. The problem, for them, you see, is… we win elections for the party. The liberal GOP, left to it’s own devices, cannot swing a single election. Soon there would be no liberal Republicans in the House or the Senate. I can’t help but feel that would be a good thing for the Party and the country.
Conservatives know what they believe and they can articulate it well. They aren’t good at nuance, or shading their beliefs, in any way. You ask Conservatives a question and you will get a direct answer. No flip-flopping. Unlike Liberals who are with you at the beginning of a war but flee at the sound of the first gunshots, Conservatives stay for the entire war… period!
We can be defeated… but not easily. As things are today, the GOP is continually on the edge of defeat. A Conservative Party would stay away from the edge.
I fully expect to see another party develop in the next few months. It will be a conservative party.
The bottom line is this: Conservatives are fed up with being used to win elections and immediately afterwards being dumped. We don’t like it. We feel if we had our own party, we could do even more than the GOP allows us to do today. We feel we could eventually capture the seats held by Liberal Republicans in the Congress and in the White House.
So, give us the party. Give us a party named “The Conservative Party” and we will flock to the banner. I’m ready! How about you?
J. D. Longstreet
Is Hillary Constitutionally Qualified?
By J. D. Longstreet
We often refer to the US Constitution as an inconvenient document. And it is… if you want to make an end run around the US system of laws. It can be VERY inconvenient for those who are used to sailing close to the wind, so to speak, or those who live their lives in the gray zone of legality. The thing is… the constitution has very few gray areas.
Even as I write, the presumed President-Elect of the US, Mr. B.H. Obama, is in a self-made protracted struggle to answer legal questions about his constitutional qualifications to even BE President of the US, the position to which he has just been elected. (Obama is, at best, PRESUMED to have been elected. Whether he has been elected, or not, cannot be certain until after the electoral votes are counted. Until then — he is actually, and in fact, the Presumed President-Elect.) Now, Obama’s appointee to be the US Secretary of State is having the eyes of legal scholars cast upon her qualifications as well. Needless to say, this is NOT an auspicious beginning for Mr. Obama’s presidential administration. I am very afraid this is the sort of thing we are going to be subjected to for a good portion of Mr. Obama’s stay in the Oval Office.
Let’s take a look at the Constitution and see what the problem is… in so far as it may affect Mrs. Bill Clinton. Article One; Section Six of the Constitution says the following:
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment, which says the following: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.)
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The paragraph above (in bold/Italic type) is the portion of the constitution, which has raised eyebrows concerning Hillary Clinton’s possible disqualification to hold the office of SecState.
The Constitution plainly says that no member of Congress, either the House of Representatives or the Senate, can hold an appointed office if that office received an increase in salary during the time the appointee served in the House or the Senate. The idea was to avoid having someone benefit from a salary increase for which he, or she, voted approval. Now, I dare say, most of us do not keep track of the salaries of cabinet members. So, after a little light research on the Internet, we learned that President Bush signed an executive order, which approved a salary increase for the Secretary of State, on January 4th, 2008. That order raised the SecState’s salary from US$186, 600 dollars a year to US$191, 300 dollars per year.
Another pesky Republican raising another annoying red flag in an atrempt to sabotage the process of a duly elected democrat president, you say? Nope. This is the work of another pesky democrat. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who just happens to be the senior member of the US Senate and, some say, a very fine scholar, indeed, on the US Constitution.
So, what to do? Well, this has happened before. Back in 1973, President Richard Nixon nominated Sen. William Saxbe, of Ohio, as Attorney General. Nixon did this right after he had fired the top officials at the Justice Department in the midst of the Watergate mess. See, he had fired the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, in that “Saturday Night Massacre” as it was referred to in those days. Problem was… Saxbe was, in fact, a member of the Senate in 1969 when Congress voted to increase pay for cabinet secretaries.
How was this resolved? Well, Congress simply voted to reduce the salary of the Attorney General to what it is was before the offending raise in 1969 and the Senate went on to confirm Saxbe.
Senator Byrd objected to Saxbe’s confirmation on constitutional grounds at the time saying in a story, which appeared in the Washington Post, that the constitution was: “so clear that it can’t be waived. In my judgment, the bill itself shouldn’t be passed. We should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle.” You can read that story at:
So, what will happen? Well, based strictly on what we have seen the “Honorables” do in the past… my best guess is that Hillary will be the next Secretary of State… even if the Senators have to make that “end run” around the oh, so inconvenient, Constitution as they did for the Nixon appointee.
Adhering to the Constitution would mean that Hillary would not be eligible to hold the office of Secretary of State until the year 2013… at the earliest. I mean… LEGALLY speaking, you understand. But, as we have pointed out and warned about on so many previous occasions, never, ever, bet on the Congress doing the right thing when it is easier for them to do the expedient thing.
There is an excellent article on this titled: “Byrd’s Office Explores Constitutionality of Sen. Clinton Serving as Secretary of State” at CNSNEWS.COM at:
Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next Secretary of State… if she really and truly wants the office. Expecting the Senate to follow the law of the land would be a lame expectation, indeed.
J. D. Longstreet